All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

Navigation

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to
use the classic discussion system instead. If you login, you can remember this preference.

Churches can't be overtly political, and members of churches are citizens too. The point is that something as big as letting active-duty military people take part in the democratic process is a Big Deal, not something that should've been slid thru days just before the RNC. This reeks.

Maybe you missed the part brian, the one where it states that IT IS AGAINST THE LAW. Not that laws matter to these folks anymore. Not like the military coup didn't take place years ago, but it's nice to try to keep up the illusion.

Some newspaper says something and you believe it? I've read the entire Uniform Code of Military justice and it doesn't say I can't take part in a political party as a citizen. They even have officers especially appointed to let us register to vote! The horror!

Vets and non-active duty, sure, but active duty guys in uniform? Hey, aren't they supposed to be out shooting at something brown and vaguely menacing? this DoD directive [sdmcp.org] seems pretty clear but, then again, I guess you don't count since you were just in the National Guard and it isn't listed. The contention is on active duty officers....like having a regiment show up at a political rally or something, even if it weren't considered illegal, it'd certainly be very worrisome for this thing the US continues to call 'freedom'.

That directive says that someone in the military can attend as long as they are NOT in uniform. Read it again "not in uniform". As a veteran myself I can cound zero times that I was told how or who to vote for. Facism? Hardly. Alarmist? Certainly. The reason a church cannot politicize is because there are no rules regarding it. There are plenty of rules and regulations governing the DoD and the services.

I don't recall anyone saying anything about people in uniform being at the convention. The law is pretty clear that that uniforms are right out, but I haven't seen any part of the linked discussion that said anything about what people were wearing. All I've seen is an unsubstantiated sentence in an AP wire report that looks like it's based on a RNC press release. That doesn't look like a credible chain of information to me.

Well, alright then, the more active duty military guys showing up at conventions the merrier. I don't have to care anymore as I left and I don't know why I bother. It should be very worrisome that any active personnel did in fact show up at the convention, law or not. I think people jump to conclusions because things are slipping away from democracy and when people get upset they're just told they're lefties and such.

I'm certainly no expert but it doesn't smell quite like fascism to me. Bush supporters in the military now get to be extras in the RNC crowd scenes. They're not writing the platform. (Although, I wonder if we'd have fewer wars if military rank and file got to vote on these radical new doctrines for when you start a war.... yeah I know, that's not what it's about, but just saying.)

My mistake. I meant "as in the military regulations brian linked to", but I misremembered -- you didn't link to them, I looked them up myself.

When not in uniform there isn't a problem.

The 1344.10 [dtic.mil] document lists example activities that are proscribed, like speaking before a political gathering, or doing clerical work for a campaign. I'm not a lawyer, but don't those apply whether in or out of uniform?